Jacqueline Maley shoots herself in the foot, again…

“… the fear of causing offence is the glue that holds civil society together.”

Jacqueline Maley is the twat that came to a Q-Society fundraiser to derail the whole purpose of the exercise. Her intention was to smear the Q-Society as a bunch of racist-bigot-Islamophobes and she nearly succeeded. How? Because of a careless quip by Larry Pickering, a cartoonist who is on the kill list of Mohammedan assassins. He happens to dislike homosexuals because, as a young lad, he was bashed and gang-raped by 14 of them.

Now here’s a gem from Jacqueline that would make every SJW jump for joy:

“… the fear of causing offence is the glue that holds civil society together.”

Right. We need to fear the speech police otherwise we won’t be civil. Thank you, Jacqueline. You are a beacon of light in a desert of ignorance.

She also accuses us of hiding our “naked prejudice behind some sort of veil – and the veil of choice has become concern for the rights of women. So runs the line of much anti-Muslim sentiment in this country and abroad”.

Really.

Islam is a medieval religion that oppresses women, provides cover for forced marriages and honour killings, treats female flesh as shameful and allows Muslim men to treat their women as personal property.

But none of us can say so out loud in our so-called pluralistic society because political correctness has made people too scared to offend.

So runs the line of much anti-Muslim sentiment in this country and abroad, among people who are just smart enough to hide their naked prejudice behind some sort of veil – and the veil of choice has become concern for the rights of women.

The “fear of causing offence” has become, we are told, a powerful gag that impedes our freedom of speech and stops people from telling the truth about Islam.

RELATED CONTENT

Even if this were true, which is demonstrably isn’t, it is worth reminding ourselves that the fear of causing offence is the glue that holds civil society together.

It is overwhelmingly a force for good.

Never, not in history or in any nation, was censorship a “force for good.”

Last week I attended a fundraising dinner for the Q Society, which describes itself as an “Islam-critical organisation”.

They insist they are not anti-Muslim.

The people who claim Muslim women are victims of their religion are generally the first to accuse Muslim people of ”playing the victim”. Photo: Andrew Quilty.

The two female speakers at the event were novelist Gabrielle Lord and Kirralie Smith, who ran at the last election as a NSW Senate candidate for the Australian Liberty Alliance.

Both women gave impassioned speeches in which they described having met Muslim women, in Australia and around the world, who had been the victims of Islamic practices, subjected to violence and forced marriages.

Parts of the speeches would not have been out of place at a UN forum for women’s rights.

But the rhetoric that surrounded these pleas for Muslim women’s rights told a different story.

People spoke of “them”, of “wars” between “us” and “them”, and of course cartoonist Larry Pickering let the cat out of the bag when he told the crowd he “can’t stand Muslims”.

Smith has since said she didn’t hear those comments and disagrees with them.

But respect for women is not something Pickering is renowned for, and it didn’t ooze from the cartoon of his that depicted a woman in a niqab being raped – and which was auctioned for the Q Society cause.

Pickering is his own man. He donated a cartoon, that’s it. He is not even a member of the Q-Society. He doesn’t speak for the Q-Society. To suggest otherwise is defamatory.

And what is that cause, exactly?

It is the defence of a defamation action brought by a halal certifier.

Finally. Now we’re getting somewhere. But no:

The Q Society folk are not fundraising for a foundation that helps at-risk Muslim women. They don’t want to build a shelter for Muslim women fleeing family violence. They are not asking for resources to help girls subjected to genital mutilation done in the name of Islam.

Ignore the halal racket. Ignore the headchoppers. Ignore the blood in the streets. Anything that doesn’t help Muslim women is not a worthy cause. Jacqueline, you have a few screws loose!

Likewise, while Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie campaigns against the burka, in part because it’s oppressive of women, she also manages to imply veiled women might be security risks – terrorists, in fact.

She can imply that because many acts of terrorism have been committed by women (and men) covering themselves with a burqa.

The people who claim Muslim women are victims of their religion are generally the first to accuse Muslim people of “playing the victim”.

Muslims are mendacious grievance mongers. That is their stock in trade. No point pretending its not the case.

This is what Lambie said to the Muslim youth leader Yassmin Abdel-Magied on last Monday night’s fiery Q&A.

Nearly a decade ago, I worked as religious affairs reporter for theHerald.

Obviously, Jacqueline learning nothing from the experience:

As part of the job, I visited mosques and met sheikhs and imams, as well as ordinary Muslims. I was acutely aware of how few Muslim people were in my own circle.

That’s because you’re a filthy kafir, Jacqueline. They don’t want you in their circles.

I tried to be culturally sensitive and objective – professional, in other words – but I admit I was taken aback when a Shiite imam refused to shake my hand because it was improper for him to have physical contact with a woman. I also felt uncomfortable with the back-of-the-bus gallery for women worshippers at Lakemba mosque.

To be “culturally sensitive” is not professional. Neither is it objective. It clouds your judgement. A sound mind seeks knowledge, not sensitivity.

Those things were hard to square off with the notion that Islam is a religion that treats women equally.

It doesn’t.

But it is equally hard to argue convincingly that the best way to promote female equality in Australia’s Muslim subcultures is to demonise the entire religion.

Gibberish. You know nothing about Islam and you learned nothing, Jacqueline. You can’t even imagine how demonic the “entire religion” is.

Wajiha Ahmed is a Pakistani-born, Sydney-based lawyer and a non-practising Muslim. She feels the presumption that all Muslim women are oppressed is unjustified.

If she protects Islam, she is practicing Islam. In the West, not all Muslim women are oppressed. Is that so hard to understand?

Ten years ago she took part in a cross-cultural forum between Muslims and non-Muslims called the Sydney Leadership Dialogue.

It was organised by Macquarie Bank and led by Ross Cameron, the former Liberal MP who also spoke at last week’s Q Society dinner.

Ahmed participated in the “dialogue” because she wanted to help the cause of social cohesion after the upset of the 2005 Cronulla riots.

She helped to obscure the so-called “Cronulla riots.” All she did was try to put enraged infidels back to sleep.

She was horrified to see Cameron had attended the Q Society dinner, describing it as a “180-degree turn” from the kinds of sentiments he spouted back then.

Horrified? We are horrified about the corpses piling up all over the world where the jihad rages. Because Cameron learned a few things and moved on, and Ahmed still believes we can turn the clock back.

In an article Cameron wrote in 2007 for Refugee Transitionsmagazine, he said “too often, traditional media see their interest as projecting, sharpening and magnifying the fears of their audience, further locking-in positions, polarising people who could be friends and evaporating the precious goodwill that still exists”.

It’s tool late for me. Islam and everything about offends me greatly. You won’t get me to accept a religion that boasts a murdering paedophile as its founder under any circumstances. Now if Islam repudiates Mohammed then I will have no grounds for offence. Yeah, and the moon really is green cheese. Would we accept people who promoted Adolf Hitler as the ideal man? I don’t think so. Mohammed is worse than Hitler.

“Wajiha Ahmed is a Pakistani-born, Sydney-based lawyer and a non-practising Muslim……..”.

A non-practicing Muslim is an apostate. Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or through deed. (Wikipedia)

Is a non practicing Muslim a Muslim? A true Muslim is one who not only believes in Islam but actually practices it.

The term Islam means submission to the will of Allah and obedience to His law. Wajiha Ahmed, by being non-practicing is being non-submissive to Allah’s will and also disobedient to Allah’s law. Ergo, Wajiha Ahmed is not a true Muslim.